Presidential Debates Version 2.0

A very interesting (but NYT so sadly ephemeral) article about John Edwards in this week's NYT Magazine.

I've already mentioned Edwards was my favorite candidate in the initial runup. He even nailed Dean more effectively than I attempted. This is what was truly offensive about Dean's confederate flag statement:

He pivots the issue expertly back toward the youthful audience, just as he and his aides discussed in his living room. ''One of the problems that we have with young people today is people talk down to you,'' Edwards says in his best lawyer's drawl, index fingers jabbing the air. ''Exactly the same thing happens with people from the South. I have seen it. I have grown up with it. I'm here to tell you it is wrong. It is condescending. And the only way that we as a party are going to win the White House back is to reach out to everybody and treat them with the dignity and respect that they're entitled to.''

But the whole picture of how debates appear from the inside depressed me. "Spin Alley" where the staffers and candidates try to get passing reporters to get their post-debate soundbites. The low ratings (I almost never watch a debate due to sheer boredom).

The candidates want longer timeframes on specific issues, to allow those with a true policy framework rather than a soundbite to shine. The only way to do this is fewer candidates, which is currently unacceptable. This isn't going to change before the primaries.

So let's change it up. Turn debates into Reality TV.

1) Schedule debates in a 1 hour head-to-head format. Each debate should cover 3 broad issues (Medicare Reform, Long-term military presence in Iraq, and Education could be one) selected from a pool of 7 (to provide variety and excitement).
2) Get someone young, hip, and good looking for leadins and commercial breaks (give it exclusively to a major cable network and give them commercials as a chance to keep it profitable). Have each candidate's policy foundation for each subject prepared as a high-quality video leadin rather than read by the candidate. For moderators use John McCain, Bill Clinton, and James Carville (think American Idol).
3) The audience is made of randomly selected registered Democrats (this is a primary). Position papers are sent to the audience members in advance so the basics don't have to be explained (what the leadins do for the home viewer). There is a social event the night before to allow the candidates to schmooze on camera (think The Bachelor) and lobby one-on-one (part of the opening leadin). Why not select the audience on a snap basis (with a screening questionnaire based on knowledge from the debates) and immediately fly them out to the next debate (like Who Wants to be a Millionaire?).
4) The winning policy is determined by audience vote in real time after each segment. Win 2 out of 3 issues to go on to the next round. Do the whole thing in a quick 2 to 3 week timeframe. Then start again with another set of debate topics.
5) The winner gets a half-hour immediately afterwards on a Larry King type show to discuss soft issues.
6) The issues of the final winner are written without modification into the Democratic platform for 2004.
7) Have preparation/rehearsal bloopers at the end. Have real-time feeds from the rooms where staffers are watching the debate.

Suddenly, the party platform is meaningful and debates are meaningful. It's fair to the candidates (I'd seed the matchups by poll #s to encourage a high-profile final) and gives them a long-form chance to shine. Guys like Al Sharpton with little chance would have a real opportunity to make it to later rounds (since your opponent would only have 20% or so crowd support). And it would get people thinking about issues and alternatives rather than sound bites.

And it would be exciting and varied enough for real people to watch and achieve serious ratings. It seems like they go out of their way to make debates boring by being scrupulously fair. Think out of the box: "And John Edwards pulls out his second consecutive narrow victory to make it into next week's semifinals. Tomorrow night --- will the new Iraq reconstruction plan that John Kerry adopted from Al Sharpton be competitive with Howard Dean's dominant proposal to withdraw from Iraq? Or will Medicare reform knock Dean out once and for all? Join the debate online at Democrats2004.com"

Comments

[June B . Cater]

How the presidential depabes are run is a disgrace. Kerry has said he wants a real debate...Does he mean it??? wHAT CAN WE DO DO TO MAKE THEM REAL DEBATES???